Talk:Lower limbs venous ultrasonography/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 00:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, this would be a fail for criteria #1b on WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT, but if you report that you can fix the problems quickly, I will keep the review on hold while that happens. However, I will hold off doing a detailed review until that happens.

The main immediate problem is that the lede should be a summary of the main body of the article. This appears not to be so and a completely new lede is required. Generally, there should not be information introduced into the lede that is not in the main body. The number of references in the lede speaks the opposite. There is nothing wrong per se with references being in the lede, but generally these will be unnecessary if the lede truly is a summary of already referenced material in the body. A couple of things I looked at more or less at random: the 1956 for ultrasound does not appear in the body; the lede says the procedure is safe but article does not discuss safety at all. On the other hand, there is much in the article that is not summarised in the lede. I would expect at least more or less every sub-heading to be mentioned. All the ones I searced for at random were not there.

There are numerous broken references (lots of red) in the bibliography and references sections. Also, these are in the wrong order per WP:FNNR. Don't know what's wrong there, but it needs fixing before a proper review can take place: reference checking is an important part of the review.

One small point, I am not at all sure that the lede sentence has been artificially contrived to get the article title in bold at the front and that an alternative construction would not read better. When titles are descriptive (rather than a recognised term) it is not essential to repeat it exactly in the article - see WP:BOLDTITLE. Thanks for the effort that went into writing this and I hope these comments are not too discouraging. SpinningSpark 00:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You might also consider requesting a copyedit at WP:GOCE to improve the English. There are places where this is bad enough to fail GA criterion #1a. It's disappointing that Peer Review did not pick up a lot of these points, you seem to have got a poor service there. SpinningSpark 00:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC) and 07:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Spark for your help. I understand the problems you list and I will try to correct them. I will begin tomorrow. I'm Portuguese so a perfect English is nearly impossible for me, but I will try to do my best. Doc Elisa 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
References are corrected. I don't understand how I didn't see those errors. I'm so sorry. Doc Elisa 19:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the English, that's why I suggested asking for help at GOCE. But it might be some time before they respond. SpinningSpark 19:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Request at GOCE is done. I'm preparing a good new lead. Thank you for help. This article is really important and I hope it can be good enough to be one of the translation task force articles. Doc Elisa 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll keep this on my watchlist, just say when you are ready for another review. SpinningSpark 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Is not yet all reviewed. Iztwoz is working on it and I'm very grateful. She is doing a spectacular job on this article. Doc Elisa 19:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
Spinningspark, I think that the article can be reviewed again. I will appreciate that you tell me if other problems exist. I will try to correct them promptly. Thank you Doc Elisa 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is yet ready for a full review. There still seems to be numerous WP:LEAD problems:
    • The lede discusses safety but the article does not. I would have thought that ref#4's statement that no harmful effects have ever been reported could usefully be put in the article at least.
    • A great deal of the article is taken up with procedure but the lede does not really touch this
    • Likewise, the particular details section is quite long and discusses particular veins, but none of this finds its way into the lede.
    • "competent" is neither wikilinked nor explained
  • The lede picture is claimed to be "own work" but the author is stated as someone else. If it is not own work then the licence is invalid. {{PD-user}} should be used instead or whatever the equivalent is on Commons. All the images should be checked for similar problems.
  • I don't understand why "color" is linked to signal processing or what it means in this context.
  • SpinningSpark 17:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Spark for your comments. I have read them and I´ll think about the lead to do it properly. Is the hardest part for me.

  • I'll put on notes the meaning of "competent"
  • It is really own work. Before I start this article I asked on Wikiproject Medicine the possibility to do it because this is my specialty. They told me that it was possible if all requirements of impartiality were accomplished - what I did. Nearly all photos were taken by me or by my assistant in my consulting room. Some of these photos are on my site ( which is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. At Commons they know it. I choose photos which you can found the equivalent in books, to preserve impartial information.
  • Color is linked to signal processing because is a color codification processed by the equipment but is better to link it to medical ultrasonography. The ultrasound signal received can be treated by the equipment in image, velocity (doppler) or color code (flow coming to probe is one color and flow going away another color)

I tried to do an article easy to understand with only the very important details. Doc Elisa 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


  • It's been three weeks since the last post to this page, and 19 days since the most recent edit to the article. Where does this review stand? Is it close to being wrapped up? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I have not done a new review so far because the proposer had indicated they were going to address the lede problems but have not yet indicated they have done so. I have been busy the last couple of weeks and have not kept up with the more recent changes to the article. I will do a full review in the next few days unless the proposer indicates they need more time. SpinningSpark 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for more time on behalf of Doc Elisa as I think she may be away. I am trying to address some of the issues raised meantime. Iztwoz (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you ready for a review yet? If you are still not ready after this length of time it might be better to withdraw the nomination and renominate later after you have worked on the article in your own time. SpinningSpark 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not the proposer of the article but it seems that Doc Elisa is still away and I think all the issues raised have been dealt with so if it could go ahead think that would be good option Iztwoz (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Spinningspark[edit]

  • The article currently has a maintenance template at the top. If the original issue has been dealt with then it should be removed.
  • The article has a history section, but there is nothing on this in the lede. At least say when it first started to be used.
  • One or more of venous system, deep vein and superficial vein could usefully be linked
  • Is there an article on heart ultrasound that could be linked?
  • "... allowing a proper assessment...". Would "...making an assesment..." not be simpler and clearer?
  • "...enabling the charting...". Just "charting" would make it easier to read without loss of understanding.
  • "The use of this technology is the first choice". This fact does not appear to be in the body of the article. (a) It should be, and (b) it needs a citation.
  • " the detail needed was made possible with the developments of Doppler and color (use)"
    • This needs splitting into its own sentence
    • It is not clear what "detail needed" means
    • It is not clear what (use) means. Use of color in the display perhaps?
    • Doppler should be wikilinked. In general, any wikilink in the article body should also be repeated in the lede where relevant.
  • "Apart from the actual scanner..." The words actual and needed are superfluous
  • all important > important, particularly is superfluous
  • "Ultrasonography is based on the knowledge..." This sentence would be better at the beginning of the paragraph. Say what it is first, then say what it is used for. Knowledge may not be the best choice of word here. Principle perhaps?
  • "...sound can pass through body tissues which offer an acoustic impedance." This needs rewording, it even sounds contradictory. You need to be saying something along the lines that the transmission of sound depends on the acoustic impedance of body tissue and detection of the transmitted sound can be used to form an image of internal structures.
  • The sentence about the gel is out of place at the end of the paragraph. I suggest you mention that gels are used to make a good acoustic impedance contact where you talk about the probes and leave the discussion of air bubbles for the article body.
  • " not constant". Not clear what this means. Does it mean that the anatomy is not the same from individual to individual?
  • The section on the specific veins is probably just a bit too detailed and should be shortened. Wikilinks should be provided for terms that have articles.
  • "Three anatomical compartments". It is not clear what this means. Is there an article that can be linked? Is the text that follows meant to be a list of the three compartments? If so, I am not identifying three items.
  • "The examination report must include...
    • This paragraph has just one orphan sentence and would be better combined with the previous one
    • The word "must" is out of place in an encyclopaedia article. must include > includes would be better, unless there is some some regulation that does indeed legislate this.
    • The abbreviations DVS and SVS should be given earlier where the terms first occur.
    • The term mapping is not explicitly explained, either here, or in the article body. If it means mapping of DVS And SVS then the sentence could perhaps say "...and their mapping".
  • SpinningSpark 13:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Prose style is preferred to list style, and there does not seem to be a pressing need for a list in this instance.
  • Please find a suitable wikilink topographic anatomy. The article gross anatomy seems to be a synonym. If so then a redirect will do.
  • The second and third bullets of the list seem to be about the same thing. It would be clearer if these were combined as continuous prose, and it would be clearer still if the note was incorporated in the main prose.
    • Changed to prose style. Chose to use linked gross anatomy for easier reading. Think there's a difference between retrograde and reflux and entered same incorporating the footnotes.Iztwoz (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Risk and side-effects
  • Since ultrasonography does not involve the use of ionizing radiation, the procedure is harmless. There is nothing wrong with saying the procedure does not use ionizing radiation but it does not logically follow; the guillotine does not use ionizing radiation either, but the procedure is certainly harmful to the felon sentenced to be executed by it. Dropping the word "since" and splitting into two sentences should fix this.
    • Removed 'since' but kept one sentence. Iztwoz (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The wikilinks image treatment and color are both WP:Easter eggs. Please either reword to make those links explicit or else find better links. The signal processing article does not discuss image processing and that may be a better target. The discussion of color and doppler is buried deep in the medical ultrasonography article and would be better explicitly explained in this article. At the very least the pipe should be to an anchor where the explanation is actually found on the page.
  • ... provide color Doppler imaging; technologies that developed.... Why is "technologies" in plural? Only one item is in the list.
  • ... three probes are needed together with a top level scanner which makes it a very expensive piece of equipment. This seems to be implying that the probes are a major component of equipment cost. Is that so? Or is there some other consequential equipment costs associated with using multiple probes?
    • Replaced image treatment by image processing. Expanded Doppler and color. Removed ref to cost of equipment. Iztwoz (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ... can reflect itself on the tissue interfaces. > "... is reflected by the tissue interfaces."
  • So that, any tissue will still reflect the ultrasound beam to some degree. The meaning of this sentence is unclear given the later statement that reflections occur from interfaces of differing impedance. As I understand it, reflections do not occur while the sound wave is travelling through homogenous body tissue, although some of the wave may be absorbed by the resistive (ohmic) component of the impedance.
    • Removed sentence as gist seems to be a repetition of previous sentence. Iztwoz (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikilinked transducer and removed ref to transceiver as usage not very frequent.Iztwoz (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Deep vein thrombosis
  • Unlike the arterial ultrasound study, the venous ultrasonography... The definite articles superfluous here. Why do we have arterial ultrasound study but venous ultrasonography? If there is meaning to the change in terminology it should be explained and if there is not it is confusing.
    • Changed to ultrasonography and removed definite articles.Iztwoz (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Great axis" needs explaining. Unlike great circle, there is no Wikipedia article or dictionary entries.
    • Removed great from refs to axis...think it might have been to reference 'great' saphenous vein.Iztwoz (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ...appear on the screen as round, and black inside. The vein in the associated image does not appear round. The probe would have to be end-on to a vein in order for one to see a circle.
    • Removed sentence Iztwoz (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Doesn't" and suchlike contractions are not used in formal works such as encylopaedias. It is used four times in one sentence including a confusing triple negative.
    • Simplified para Iztwoz (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • quick (DVT) and proximal (DVT) . Why is DVT in brackets? It is not synonymous with either quick or proximal.
    • Agreed and removed brackets Iztwoz (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • though to... > "...but limited to..."
    • changed to but this is limited to....easier reading? Iztwoz (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Please give an indication by each item when you have dealt with it, or otherwise respond to the point. I will strike the item when it is satisfactorily dealt with (but please don't strike my comments yourself). SpinningSpark 13:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Iztwoz, you need to keep your comments separate from mine, at the moment they are rapidly becoming hopelessly entangled. Your repy to my points should at least be on a separate and indented line, if not a separate paragraph. And you need to sign your replies. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Venous insufficiency
  • I am confused by the opening paragraph, is the section supposed to about the procedure (as the heading would indicate) or is it about the procedure for requesting a procedure? I am not sure we need to be talking about how doctors make requests at all. This is a general encyclopaedia article, not a handbook for doctors. Or do you mean "the procedure requested" is different?
    • Made some changes using 'the procedure requested'. Added definition at start of paragraph. Iztwoz (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC
  • The request for this investigation needs to be made by a physician who has firstly undertaken a clinical examination and can provide valid reasons for the investigation. It strikes me that this is likely to be a country specific, or even hospital specific requirement. It is at least open to being challenged, so requires a cite if it is indeed an international requirement.
    • Made more generalised. Iztwoz (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • CHIVA needs explaining. I know you have footnoted the acronym, but that does not really give a clear idea of its meaning.
  • Paraná maneuver. There are a lot of technical terms in this para which need either glossing, wikilinking, or replaced with common vocabulary. These are; proprioceptive reflex, popliteal level, edematous.
  • Medical jargon should be explained, linked, glossed in a footnote, or avoided altogether. "Toe flexion" is probably just about acceptable (I think it means curling the toes), but how is a reader supposed to get the meaning of "active foot dorsi-flexion" without a knowledge of anatomy and/or Latin?
    • Changed to more general terms Iztwoz (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "All of these trained techniques need time to be mastered properly." Besides being an orphan sentence, this is out of place here. The need for training has already been discussed in a previous section.
    • Removed sentence Iztwoz (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "great saphenous vein (GSV) collaterals". What does this mean?
  • "two exceptions...have a flow from top to bottom..." Having a flow from top to bottom does not appear at first sight to contradict the two stated conditions of normal flow. Do you mean flowing top to bottom could be misinterpreted as going away from the heart? In any case, I don't think it is really necessary to dwell on the possibility of misinterpretation. Once the principle of the flow is explained to the reader it should be obvious that this is a possible error for someone who does not know this fact. You also have a "Technical pitfalls" section where misinterpretation may be better discussed.
    • Changed reading a little not sure about keeping it in. Iztwoz (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "...and in the superficial veins the GSV..." Is there a comma missing there?
    • Changed reading Iztwoz (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

SpinningSpark 14:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Technical pitfalls
  • "Also, by definition of insufficiency..." You are expecting the reader to know the definition of insufficiency (presumably there is some technical meaning) but have not given it.
  • "...blood may be seen to flow freely in both directions..." It is not clear how this leads to a pitfall.
  • "venous anatomy is not constant" From person to person?
  • veins being where they are found, not where they are looked for" Isn't this just repeating venous anatomy is not constant? Also, "veins being where they are found" is pretty much a truism. SpinningSpark 14:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed heading to Technical difficulties and reworded a lot of the paragraph. Iztwoz (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Particular details
Great saphenous vein
  • "...drains in the common femoral vein", in > into.
    • Changed to into, but a lot of texts use in.-Iztwoz (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "... numerous collaterals, or tributaries,..." This might be better expressed as "numerous collaterals (tributaries)..."
    • Removed erroneous 'collaterals'. Iztwoz (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "... and any surgery strategic easier." strategic > strategically
    • surgery strategic was the third item (made easier), used comma. Iztwoz (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • it's
  • "... most probably to be a tributary." Grammar problem
    • Changed reading. Iztwoz (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "... will be tested by" > "is tested by"
  • "very useful" (several places, not just this section). The intensifier very is usually redundant.
    • changed to helpful and removed some 'very's'. Iztwoz (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Accessory saphenous vein
  • "alignment sign". Not clear what this is about. Two sentences, one about the junction and one about the alignment sign might make this clearer.
Small saphenous vein
  • isn't
    • Is. Made changes to insufficient to insufficiency in images. Iztwoz (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Giacomini vein
  • "Each time..." phrase appears to be redundant
  • "as it has important implications for deciding on how to treat the patient, where the surgeon..." Either the comma has been placed here in error or else the clause starting "where the surgeon" is a sentence fragment implying that some text is missing.
    • Changed reading Iztwoz (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Perforator veins
  • "conservative surgery". Is this jargon with a specific meaning or are the words used with their normal meanings?
    • added minimally invasive CHIVA Iztwoz (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Examination report
  • "needs to write" > "writes"
  • Another Easter Egg link at "color Doppler
    • Removed link to color Doppler, it is dealt with earlier and its use is quite frequent in literature. Iztwoz (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "...Their use requires appropriate training". This has already been said, probably more than once, and is not really relevant to the history section.
    • Removed sentence Iztwoz (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The sentence starting "Further progress..." is quite long and could do with breaking up for clarity. The construction "exponential increases...have enabled" should probably be singular grammar.
  • echotomography should be glossed or linked to an appropriate article.
    • Changed to linked transmission tomography Iztwoz (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The section is in the wrong order - it should be above Bibliography
  • The link in fn#41 does not work
  • The link in fn#66 does not work. I also do not think it is acceptable to cite a claim about the importance of Franceschi to an article by Franceschi. Also, the phrase "great attention to hemodynamic study began..." is a bit weasely, it does not really say anything definite.
    • Don't know how to remedy the links. Iztwoz (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed sentence Iztwoz (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

    • Many thanks Iztwoz (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am going to do a few spot checks on referencing and possibly some more comments might come out of that, but the review is just about done otherwise. Some of my comments have gone a little beyond the requirement for GA, but that is no bad thing given the stated desire to take this article to FA. That does not mean I have reviewed this article to FA standard, far from it, a lot of work would still need to be done before submitting it. I would advise addressing the following areas before taking to FA:

  1. There is still a lot of polishing needed on the language for clarity and brevity.
  2. There is an (understandable) tendency to emphasise the skill and training of the examiner and the pitfalls for an unskilled operator. This should not be a major theme for an encyclopaedia article for a general reader.
  3. The article in places reads like a manual for the operator, again not the theme needed for a general reader. I have picked up on the more obvious examples of this and the previous point in the GA review, but it still needs a thorough cleanup.
  4. Things like "false+ - flow" would be much clearer if positive was in full. Also, the correct dash needs to be used, or some other punctuation. This is just an example, the whole article needs to be reviewed for all details of MOS compliance. SpinningSpark 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Passing GA[edit]

I have only checked 100% the review of the lede but all the important issues seem to now be dealt with and I will take it on good faith that you will make the best use of the rest of my comments. The article is enormously improved since it was first nominated and your hard work thoroughly deserves the GA logo. Well done. SpinningSpark 17:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)